%■ 



63d Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Report 

M Session. \ 1 No. 780. 



PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS. 



June 8, 1914. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union and ordered to be printed. 



ft,i,~^^i^-~ 



Mr. Hinds, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fislx- 
eries, submitted the following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. R. 16477.] 

The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, having had 
under consideration the bill (H. R. 16477), a bill to conduct investiga- 
tions and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought by the 
fisheries by predaceous fishes and aquatic animals, report the same 
back with the recommendation thnt the bill be amended as follows 
and as amended it do pass. 

Amendment. — After '^act" in line 13, page 2, strike out the period 
and insert the following: "Provided, That the said sum shall not ex- 
ceed $15,000 in any fiscal year." 

In addition to the bill which is herewith reported, your committee 
has had before it the bill H. R. 4854, which proposes a bounty on 
dogfish, that fish being the most troublesome of the predaceous fishes. 
New England waters have especially been troubled by the dogfish. 
For the past 10 years bills have been presented before this committee 
and several devices have been proposed to rid the sea of these fish, 
but hitherto no effective method has been found. The method which 
is proposed in the pending bill (H. R. 16477) embodies the result of 
long study by the scientists in the Bureau of Fisheries and has the 
cooperation of the Department of Commerce, the Secretary having 
reported as follows in relation to the bill: 

Department of Commerce, 

Office op the Secretary, 

Washington, May 20, 191-4. 

My Dear Congressman: I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May 15 
inclosing, for an expression of opinion, House bill 16477, "A bill to conduct investi- 
gations and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries by pre- 
daceous fishes and other aquatic animals." As several other bills recently introduced 
for the same general purpose have appeared impracticable or otherii^'ise unsatisfactory, 
it seems ad\isable that the department should express its views on the general subject 
of protecting the fisheries from predaceous animals, and more particularly at present 
from the dogfishes. 



\ ^ 1 ^ 

2 PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS. 

The dogfishes are small sharks which congregate in schools, and there are two species 
common on the Atlantic coast, the spiny dogfish found north of Cape Cod, and the 
smooth dogfish occurring in a more southerly habitat. These differ more or less in 
habits, but are alike in being great nuisances on account of their practice of eating 
baits and seizing the food fish caught on lines and in nets. It is not believed by 
the department that they destroy very considerable numbers of free fish— that is, 
those which are uninjured or untrammeled by nets. The food of the smooth dogfish 
consists mainly of bottom animals, mussels, scallops, sea snails, crabs, starfishes, etc., 
and it also, unlike the spiny dogfish whose food is le3s known, in certain places and 
at certain seasons destroys considerable numbers of lobsters. The stomachs of both 
species often contain food fishes and fragments of fishes, but there is good reason to 
believe that they come principally from lines and nets. 

The fishermen justly regard these small sharks with strong disfavor as sources of 
annoyance and of very considerable loss to the fisheries, and in many places fishing 
has to be abandoned when the dogfishes appear. The fishermen, especially those 
of Maine, have asked for relief and have actively advocated two types of measures — 
one frankly offering a bounty for each dogfish taken, and the other in effect doing 
the same thing by providing for the purchase of dogfishes at a fixed price at a large 
number of fertilizer factories to be established along the coast by the United States 
Government. The department, in reporting on House bill 4854 under date of April 
21, 1914, has expressed to your committee its views in respect to bounties, and it is 
unnecessary to enter into a discussion of the proposition further than to say that the 
expense involved would be heavy and would be borne principally by that part of 
the population which has little or no interest in the matter, that it would result in 
the establishment of a precedent which would be invoked in respect to measures for 
the destruction of other noxious animals, and that it would result in the waste of 
material of considerable potential economic value. The proposal for the establish- 
ment of Government reduction works for utilizing the dogfish for the manufacture 
of fertilizer and oil seems more plausible, as it requires the use rather than the waste 
of the fishes caught; but an analysis of the project shows it to be economicaaly im- 
practicable and in essence the payment of a bounty under cover. If the bill drawn 
by the proponents of the measure were to be given full effect it would probably cost 
the Government as much as would the straight bounty. 

One of the provisions of a measure introduced at the instance of some of the fisher- 
men of Maine is that the fertilizer produced by the proposed Government factories 
is to be sold to the farmers at cost. This, quite naturally, looks attractive to the farmers 
as a blow at the high cost of farming, but it is doubtful if they would give the measure 
very enthusiastic support if they were to be compelled to buy the product on the terms 
stated. The ofiicial reports of the Canadian Government dogfish reduction works 
show that 1 ton of dogfish will produce about 250 pounds of scrap, and for the produc- 
tion of 1 ton of fertilizer there would be required about 8 tons of raw dogfish, which 
at $8 per ton, as provided in the bills introduced in Congress, would make the cost of 
raw material about $64. Making due allowance for the value of oil extracted, the 
product of the proposed plants could not be sold for less than about $40 per ton, even if 
the Government were to donate the plants, and all labor, fuel, and other expenses of 
operation. If these expenses could be kept as low per ton of material used as in the 
commercial factories using the more readily handled menhaden, and with an allow- 
ance of but 10 per cent for depreciation, repairs, and interest on the cost of the plants, 
it would cost about |70 to produce a ton of fertilizer which the farmer can purchase 
in the open market for about half that much. There are other objections to the 
Government engaging in the manufacture of fertilizer which it is unnecessary to point 
out to your committee. 

While the department is opposed to these measures on account of their impractica- 
bility and economic unsoundness, it is in sympathy with their purpose and it believes 
that H. R. 16477, on which you now ask an opinion, affords an opportunity to attack 
the problems involved and in the course of time to solve them in a manner to afford 
relief to the fishermen and benefit to the people as a whole. The belief is entertained 
that the proper method of procedure is not to exterminate the dogfish by indiscriminate 
destruction, but to convert a nuisance into an economically useful product and a source 
of profit. It is believed that the only way in which this can be accomplished is to 
induce the utilization of this pest as food. Although this has been scoffed at by those 
who would be the first and principal beneficiaries, the project is practical and eco- 
nomically sound. The dogfish is not eaten in the United States solely on account of 
prejudice. It is palatable and nutritious, and its food is but little different from that 
of the haddock and other valued food fishes. It is extensively eaten in Europe, and 
during the past few years it has grown in favor in England, where 5,500,000 pounds, 
with a value to the fishermen of $80,000, were marketed in 1912. This large and in- 



ll'N 'lb' WA 



,- PEEDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS. 3 

ycreasing production of a cheap and excellent food is a boon to the people at large, while 
the fishermen receive about $28 per ton for their catch as against $8 which they would 
receive if the Government were to engage in the unprofitable production of fertilizer 
under the conditions recently proposed in this country. 

To introduce the dogfish or any other unutilized fish into consumption in the face of 
general prejudice and ignorance of its qualities, and the lukewarn interest of the 
fishermen themselves, will lequire tim^e and a well-considered practical campaign. 
It will involve demonstrations and publicity to acquaint the people with the quali- 
ties of the fishes and the methods of cooking and preparing them and marketing 
experiment.* on a commercial scale. H. R. 16477 appears to give authority for effec- 
tive work of this character and moreover it makes it possible to extend it not only 
to the dogfish, but to other marine pests of equal or greater destructiveness. The 
department regards the bill as a piece of valuable constructive legislation, and urges 
that your commfttee give it favorable consideration and that you press its enactment. 
Very truly, yours, 

William C. Redfield, Secretary. 
Hon. J. W. Alexander, 

Chairman Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

In addition to the facts which are found in the report of the Sec- 
retary of Commerce, the scientists at the Bureau of Fisheries give 
some interesting facts in regard to the subject: 

The dogfishes are little sharks, weighing, when adult, from 5 to 15 pounds. They 
get their popular name from their habit of traveling in large schools or packs like dogs 
or wolves, and their chief present interest to the fishermen arises from their predaceous 
habit and ravenous appetites. They feed solely on animal food, which they get 
wherever it is most readily obtainable, and on the fishing grounds this is usually on 
the trawl lines or in the nets of the fishermen. 

Trawl lines are long stout lines to which shorter lines, each with a hook, are attached 
at intervals of about 6 feet. They are stretched on the bottom, held in place by 
suitable anchors, and marked by buoys, and as a single dory or fishing boat will often 
fish several thousand hooks, each baited with a piece of herring, alewife, or other fish, 
the fishing banks are strewn with food which the dogfish finds acceptable and readily 
obtainable. When a school of dogfish appears, they greedily seize these baits and 
eitner carry them away or are themselves hooked, the result to the fi.shermen being 
essentially the same in either case, for the line, set for merchantable fish, is either 
denuded of its lures or is loaded with dogfish for which the fisherman can find no 
market. The address and rapacity of these pests is such that vdien they are on the 
banks or along shore in large bodies the baits are seized before the valuable fish can 
take them, and the fisherman loses his time, tne labor expended in setting and hauling 
his lines, the value of his bait, and all of the other items which enter into the expenses 
of the fishery. 

In the case of the gill-net fishery the dogfishes are attracted by the helpless food 
fishes enmeshed in the nets, and they either tear them bodily away and devour them 
or bite them in two, leaving nothing but the head to show where a valuable fish had 
been. Worse than this in some respects is the damage wrought to the nets, the sharp 
teeth of the dogfish cutting them like shears and often leaving of the poor fisherman's 
property little but a string of tatters attached to the foot and lead lines. 

Under these conditions the fisherman can do nothing to protect himself, and his only 
. recourse to save his property and avoid an utter waste of effort is to abandon the fishery, 
often his only source of livelihood, until such time as his enemy has departed. This is 
no rare occurrence but a common one on all pa,rts of the New England coast, over a wide 
stretch of the Pacific coast as well, and to some extent on the shores of the Middle 
Atlantic States. Even the purse seiner fishing at sea will sometimes inadvertently 
inclose a school of dogfish and have his net cut and torn to pieces, the pound-net fisher- 
man along shore will find his trap filled with dogfish to the exclusion of fish of value, 
and lobster pots take dogfish instead of lobsters. 

The loss entailed by the destruction of gear and the enforced abandonment of the 
fisheries by all classes of fishermen over wide areas amounts to large sums annually. 
The Massachusetts Fish and Game Commission states that the observable damage to 
the fisheries of that State alone can be conser^^atively estimated at not less than 
$400,000 per year, and this loss to those immediately concerned must have its reflex in 
the increased cost of fish to the consumer. The effects of the dogfish nuisance, there- 
fore, are not only observable over a considerable part of the immediate coast line but 
are indirectly distributed oA'er the large section of the country depending on the sea 



4 PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS. 

for its supply of fish. Owing to the abundance of the dogfishes, their wide distribu- 
tion, their remarkable swimming powers, and their wandering habits, which carry 
them over broad expanses of the seas in which they live, it is probable that but little 
can be done toward the material reduction of their numbers. A school marauding on 
the coast one week may be far away the next and its place may be occupied by another 
host that has come from an unknown distance in the open sea. If they can not be 
exterminated, the only economic solution of the problem which they present is that 
they should be utilized and the curse of their presence converted into a blessing. 
This can be done only in accord with sound economic principles. A bounty, aside 
from other objectionable features, merely distributes the loss and can have no other 
effect. It acts like a system of fire insurance with no proAdsion for preventing fires or 
minimizing their destructiveness. The loss still exists, but its burden is borne by a 
larger number of persons. 

Leaving out of consideration certain secondary or subsidiary uses, principally of 
waste parts, fishes are economically utilized for fertilizer and for food. For the first 
purpose they must be cheap as compared with other species which are abundant, in 
fairly regular supply, easily caught and easily handled. If the dogfish be economically 
available for the manufacture of fertilizer it will be utilized by factories privately 
owned and always on the watch for a supply of suitable and cheap raw material. There 
is no doubt that fertilizer of good quality can be produced from dogfish, the only 
question being whether the fish can be obtained at a price low enough to show a 
profit on operations. If they can not be profitably used by private works, there is no 
reason to suppose that they can be by those under Government control. 

The value of the fish will be governed competitively with other fishes and if the 
price be arbitrarily fixed too low the fishermen will not supply the fish, and if too 
high, as in bills proposed for the establishment of Government reduction works, there 
will be an operating loss and the excess price of raw material will be in effect a bounty 
to the fishermen. 

None but the cheapest fish will be used for fertilizer, and considering the heavy 
wear and tear on gear involved in taking dogfish, it is doubtful if they can be taken 
profitably except for food and that appears to be the only means by which they may 
be converted from a nuisance into an economic product. That they are not at present 
eaten in the United States is no justification for the belief that they can not be intro- 
duced into the national diet. There are numerous instances of despised fishes and 
other aquatic animals attaining high favor after their qualities became known. Within 
a comparatively recent time the sturgeon, especially in the Great Lakes, was regarded 
as a nuisance and ruthlessly destroyed, but to-day a single large female fi.sh may sell 
for as much as $150. The silver hake of the New England coast was formerly wholly 
unutilized but is gradually coming into the markets; the catfishes are becoming high- 
priced fishes, and frogs are regarded as a delicacy, and the subject of frog farms is 
exciting interest as a som'ce of profit. Instances might be multiplied. 

The failure to eat dogfish in the United States appears to be due to prejudice against 
them rather than to any lack of nutritiousness or palatability . There are two species of 
dogfishes on the Atlantic coast, the spined or horned dogfish, which has the more northern 
range, and the smooth dogfish, which is generally more abundant south of Cape Cod. 
These differ somewhat in the character of their flesh, the spined species being more 
oily and resembling in composition the medium grades of salmon. This fish is well 
suited for canning. The smooth dogfish is drier and when used fi-esh its flavor and 
qualities have been likened to those of halibut and swordfish. Neither of these fish 
has objectionable or unclean feeding habits, one feeding on organisms similar to jelly 
fishes and possibly on true fishes, and the other on crabs, starfish, and other bottom- 
dwelling animals. Both, so far as food is concerned, resemble other fishes highly 
esteemed on the table. Their flesh is white and in external appearance they are 
not repulsive: their skins secrete little mucous and they never look slimy like cod and 
haddock when massed in the holds of vessels. They are eaten extensively in various 
parts of Europe. In Norway and Sweden they are used both fresh and salted or dried. 
In England, where there was formerly the same prejudice existing in the L^nited 
States, the spined dogfish has emerged from its odium and is gradually assuming a po- 
sition of importance as a food fish, about five and one-half million pounds being used 
in 1912. In the fried fish shops it masquerades and is readily eaten as plaice, one of 
the most popular of English fishes, thus demonstrating that the elimination of prejudice 
against it is a prime factor in its introduction into consumption. 

Certain secondary products of the dogfish could probably find a market if the value 
of its flesh could be established . The liver is rich in oil, having most of the qualities of 
cod-liver oil; its skin makes an attractive leather, and is unsur|)assed abrasive for fine 
wood and ivory workers, and the fins are righ in gelatine. All of these utilities should 
bd convertible into profit and if they can be availed of on a commercial scale the dog- 



PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC AKIMALS. 5 

fish problem could be solved to the satisfaction of both fishermen and the consuming 
pubhc, and a heavy annual industrial loss would be converted into a profit. 

This bill is intended to provide authority and means for the attempted attainment 
of these ends by inducing the consumer to recognize the qualities of the dogfish and 
other waste fishery products and in educating the fishermen to prepare them and 
market them in such manner as will conduce to that result. It is a practical measure, 
and it is believed that it will yield practical results. 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 880 865 3 



